Educational Hall Escape: Increasing Motivation and Raising Emotions in Higher Education Students
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
education
sciences
Article
Educational Hall Escape: Increasing Motivation and Raising
Emotions in Higher Education Students
Almudena Macías-Guillén 1 , Raquel Montes Díez 2 , Lucía Serrano-Luján 2 and Oriol Borrás-Gené 2, *
1 Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University Rey Juan Carlos, 28933 Madrid, Spain;
almudena.macias@urjc.es
2 Technical School of Computer Engineering, University Rey Juan Carlos, 28933 Madrid, Spain;
raquel.montes@urjc.es (R.M.D.); lucia.serrano@urjc.es (L.S.-L.)
* Correspondence: oriol.borras@urjc.es
Abstract: Educational Escape Room is an innovative method used in classrooms to motivate students.
This article describes a version of Educational Escape Room applied to undergraduate students.
Specifically, this work presents an adaptation of the method called Educational Hall Escape, char-
acterized by the resolution of challenges in a game-adapted room in which several student groups
compete to finish the activity in the least amount of time. To date, the Educational Hall Escape
method applied to the field of business economy has not been reported in the literature. The objective
of the study is to analyze the influence of the Educational Hall Escape method on the learning
processes and emotions of students during the activity and its impact on their motivation and the
Citation: Macías-Guillén, A.; Díez,
reinforcement their competences and knowledge. An experiment was designed in which the class
R.M.; Serrano-Luján, L.; Borrás-Gené, was divided into a control group and an experimental group. To measure the impact of the experience
O. Educational Hall Escape: in the students, two tools were used: an exam and the Gamefulquest survey. Despite the fact that
Increasing Motivation and Raising the results obtained show that the students perceived the experience as a game, it improved their
Emotions in Higher Education motivation and increased their proclivity to have an emotional bond with the subject, the academic
Students. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 527. results remained steady.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci11090527 Keywords: gamification; serious games; game-based learning; escape room; motivation; higher education
Academic Editors: José Carlos Piñero
Charlo, María Teresa Costado Dios,
Enrique Carmona Medeiro and
1. Introduction
Fernando Lloret
Educational simulation based on games, objects, or dynamic processes, is a teaching
Received: 9 July 2021 tool that could enhance the understanding of the subject content since it opens up the com-
Accepted: 7 September 2021 prehension of ideas and abstract concepts. Educative simulation is ideal for manipulating
Published: 9 September 2021 and modifying the learning process, depending on the educational needs of each moment,
and it is useful in transporting us to a place and time that would be impossible to reach as
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral a real experience in the classroom [1].
with regard to jurisdictional claims in The use of innovative teaching methodologies based on games is increasingly em-
published maps and institutional affil- ployed in the classroom. Game-Based Learning (GBL) is a methodology centered on the
iations. educational potential of the games as an enabling tool to learn in a motivational, creative
and participative form [2]. Escape Room is a learning strategy that is increasingly used,
which promotes the motivation and commitment of the students to the learning process [3].
The present study aims to examine the emotions produced by an Educational Escape
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Room (EER) experience. The emotions in the activity deal with an early feeling of stress,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. followed by satisfaction as the students solve the challenges. The evolution of the feelings
This article is an open access article is related to the self-confidence students experience during the activities regardless of the
distributed under the terms and results of the game (win/loss).
conditions of the Creative Commons It specifically applies an EER variation, named Educational Hall Escape (EHE), con-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// sisting of the performance of the game by several student teams simultaneously in the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ same educational space (classroom) and in a competitive environment. EHE is a tool that
4.0/).
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 527. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090527 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 2 of 16
motivates, enhances and strengthens skills and knowledge dealing with the subject’s topic,
i.e., introduction to business.
Our goal consists of analyzing the appropriateness of a ludic activity and its accep-
tance by the students enrolled in a Marketing Degree. The principal aspects to consider
when reproducing this model in different educational environments will be identified
and detailed.
In order to achieve this objective, an educational research experiment was designed.
The tool applied is an EHE. The class was split into control and experimental groups to
assess the teaching impact. This experience is based on four research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Students enrolled in the EHE exhibit better academic results than students
who were not.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Students enrolled in the EHE felt the activity as a complete game experience
in all its dimensions.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Students enrolled in the EHE showed higher signs of motivation than those
who were not.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Students enrolled in the EHE felt more emotions during the activity than
those who did not perform it.
Throughout this article, a literature review on Educational Escape Rooms is con-
ducted, in Section 2, to obtain a brief state of the art summary of its application. In
Section 3, Methodology, presents the development of the experience and the obtained
EHE methodology. Finally, the results are discussed and a conclusion from the experience
is displayed.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. “Serious Games” and “Gamification”
The use of game elements in education has been widely utilized since the beginning
of the education system, mainly at preschool and primary school levels. Play in school has
been taken on the normal characteristics and expectation of formal schooling [4]. It was a
question of time for games to start being applied to higher education.
Concerning the subject the present study deals with, game theory found a natural
place in economics [5]. The first application of gaming to economics dates back to Cournot
(1838) [6], and several studies describing its application have been reported since then.
This natural link between the game and the economic field results in an attractive arena for
teaching methods. As McDonald expounds in his book “The Game of Business”, business
theory and its management can be understood as an oligopolistic game, where the player
must face real world situations [7]. Thus, game-based learning techniques are applied
worldwide to encourage students, irrespective of the level of education.
The methodology consisting of the use of the fundamentals and technology of games
to understand real-life complexity has received several names, such as “simulation games”,
“serious games”, “applied games”, “persuasive games”, and “gamification” [8]. The terms
most commonly found in the literature when reporting an EER, as in the present study, are
“serious games” and “gamification”. Here, we underline the differences between them.
“Serious games” are based on complete games, with the entertainment component in
the background and education-centered [9,10]. They have an explicit educational purpose
and possess all game elements, such as specific rules, boundaries, procedures, players,
objectives, and they also look like games despite their pedagogical aim [11,12]. “Simula-
tions” are also considered “serious games”, since they allow students to be introduced
into different learning situations, complementing formal learning [10,13,14]. “Serious
games” have enjoyment (or the game itself) as an intrinsic value, and an extrinsic value,
consisting of the pursued goal which is the sake of beneficial consequences different fromEduc. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 3 of 16
the game’s sake [8], that would be the learning process in the context of this study. Mayer
also underlines the connection between game, emotions and learning in “serious games”.
As a “serious game”, “gamification” is one of the most referenced methods to enhance
the motivation in the classrooms during recent decades, and it is defined as “The process of
game-thinking and game mechanics to engage users and solve problems” [15]. Marczewski
proposes different approaches to the application of games or their techniques within the
so-called “game thinking”, with a final purpose other than entertainment, “gamification”
and “serious games” [14].
Although the origin of the term “gamification” is unknown, the first use of the term
was in 2008 in the digital media industry [16], defined as “the use of game design elements
in non-game contexts”. The application of the “gamification” method to the teaching
environment has been analyzed by several authors, and the elements mostly identified
were identified: game mechanics, application type, education level, subject, implementation
and obtained the results obtained by students [17].
2.2. Emotion
A number of recent studies state both negative and positive emotionally arousing
events are better remembered than emotionally neutral events [18–20]. Thus, “Emotional
memory is the result of storing the information that was accompanied by stressful factors
through which the information is more easily fixed” [21].
The stimuli connected to emotions affecting an individual’s feelings can persist in
memory with higher intensity than those not linked to emotion [22]. Additionally, they
can help with memory retention and the recall of information linked to those events or
stimuli [23].
2.3. Educational Escape Rooms and Motivation
An Escape Room (ER) is a game in which a team of players cooperatively discover
clues, solve puzzles, and accomplish tasks in one or more rooms in order to progress and
accomplish a specific goal in a limited amount of time [24]. Escape Rooms are Live-Action
Games that engage directly with the game world, and they match the learning environment
of the classroom perfectly, as recent publications point out. Educational Escape Rooms
(EER) propose challenges with educational approaches in which students are organized in
teams to solve puzzles and challenges associated with the content of the curriculum in a
limited time [25]. They offer more motivation and engagement than traditional educational
games [26]. At the higher education level (high school and university) in which games
are not often played in the classroom, ERs offer sophistication and novelty to teaching
practices that students value and appreciate. The published EER experiences that are being
applied worldwide at a university-/college-level report positive feedback from students.
The Escape Room activity is categorized either as “gamification” by some authors [3,27–31]
or as “serious game” by others [9,32–36]. Both techniques, “serious game” and “gamification”,
share a main goal, i.e., to foster motivation and create engagement. Their differences are
well described in the literature [8]. Furthermore, when applied to the education field, EER is
also considered a problem-based learning (PBL), since its features are also included in the ER
scenario: “ill-structured problem”, “real-life” scenario, open-ended tasks, student autonomy
and student collaboration [26].
The Escape Room is a tool that is being used in various fields including the disciplines
known as STEM: science, technology, engineering and mathematics [37], as well as numer-
ous and recent escape room experiences in health sciences [25,38,39]. However, despite
the numerous studies reporting the application of game tools in Economics and Business
fields, no Educational Escape Rooms are found in the literature.
The essential elements of an Escape Room are: (1) the escape rooms (one or several
chained or multilinear rooms); (2) challenges, riddles or tasks (various elements whose
resolution lead to the exit); (3) physical/online items (to solve tasks within the escape
room); (4) game master (people in charge of guiding the participants if required, by offeringEduc. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 4 of 16
hints); (5) narrative (common thread of the game that relates all the challenges). In the
Educational Escape Room, the design is simplified if the narrative does not act as a common
thread that relates all the challenges; however, this is less immersive because the narrative
itself motivates the player to live the experience [25].
The game master (GM) is the “big brother” of the ER activity, and EER’s game master
is not the exception. The game master has to determine the balance of guidance during
the game, and he/she conforms the guidance’s intensity by estimating the players’ skill
level [40]. The game master’s skill is determined by the coincidence of the estimated time
to solve the challenge with the reality.
The better the EER is designed, the less game-master implication is required. Frustra-
tion is the only negative feeling students could find during the performance of the EER,
since students should be able to solve the challenges and puzzles. There are four facets
a game-master must have to succeed in the EER performance. Firstly, the correct design
of the challenges so that the time limit coincides with an appropriate amount of time for
the level of ability of the students. Teachers should communicate with their students that
the activity is going to be considered for the subject assessment, since it is important to
encourage students to study and prepare for the activity [29]. Secondly, the story behind
the game should engage the students and their choices should be linked to implications;
making the players matter is key to designing a successful ER [26]. Thirdly, during the
activity, the GM should gather the information regarding the timing and students’ attitudes,
looking for features to improve the next EER’s design. Fourthly, the facet of guiding the
students teams during the activity, to control the correct performance and to give hints or
clues when needed. Generally, students prefer not to receive any guidance from the GM
but instead become immersed in an auto-guided activity [40].
Motivation
Gaming encourages students to persist in the task and offers a type of learning context,
two conditions which are essential for deep learning engagement. EER persuades students
to think about the material in a new way, which suggests that the potential benefit of ER
goes beyond a mere novelty factor [41].
In general, traditional teaching methodologies such as simple exposure of content
on a blackboard, through lessons, PowerPoint presentations and textbooks alone do not
motivate today’s students, who are Millennials or belong to Generation Z, to engage in
a topic. Since Millennial students yearn for active engagement and they are motivated
by achievement and affiliation, designing EER challenges becomes a highly compelling
activity, which increases their interest on the subject [28,42,43].
A review of the recent literature shows that the main positive effect of EER consists of
the increase in the motivation of students [26,27,29,40,44]. Nevertheless, further benefits
are identified:
• Commitment and participation of students in the subject [44];
• Enhancing group cohesion, commitment, activation, and absence of a negative effect
during the teaching and learning process [44];
• Encouraging teamwork, facilitating communication, and promoting professionalism [34];
• Engaging students in their learning environment, and encouraging collaboration,
leadership and social skill set development [28];
• Encouraging students to get to know each other [45].
Due to EER’s high intrinsic motivation for learning, several authors invite other
disciplines to apply it [40,44,46]. Compared to traditional teaching methods, students feel
engaged in problem solving, they are focused on their main goal, and they aim to succeed,
which requires to successfully communicate with the rest of the team, as well as collaborate
and use their social skills.
In order to encourage students to review the course material before the EER perfor-
mance, including the activity as a part of the subject’s assessment is a key factor [28,29].Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 5 of 16
3. Methodology
The study was carried out in the 2019–2020 academic year among 56 students enrolled
in the subject “Introduction to Business” as part of the Marketing Degree, during six weeks
in November–December.
The objective of the subject is to provide the student with a vision of the reality in
which the business world operates and also to ease the students into understanding and
analysis of the management task as a role to play in their future professional career. The
assessment system of the subject consists of continuous evaluation (20%), plus a final
theoretical exam (40%) and a practical exam (40%).
The subject is taught mainly via face-to-face teaching in class. However, theoretical
materials and other practical tests are found in a university online learning platform. The
online site used was Moodle, a Learning Management System (LMS).
A special end of semester session was organized in order to strengthen knowledge,
motivate students and to generate emotions, bringing better knowledge retention. The class
was split into two groups, control and experimental. The second group was introduced
to an Educational Hall Escape (EHE), while the control group worked on the same topics,
having to resolve the same exercises, but delivered with ordinary format in plain text.
Both groups were required to use the same practical knowledge learnt in class during
previous weeks. The educational objective of the activity performed, both in the control
and experimental groups, was to reinforce specific knowledge of the subject, working on
aspects such as emotion and motivation in the experimental group.
3.1. Educational Hall Escape
The study used the application of an Educational Hall Escape (EHE), a version of the
standard educational escape room games [26]. This nomenclature does not exist in past
scientific literature; however, it is used to differentiate from traditional commercial escape
room dynamics. Aspects that they have in common are the fact they are carried out in a
locked space, and the narrative flowing through a chain of puzzle/riddles to solve. The
aim is to solve the riddles to win the game, not escaping from the room itself.
In the proposed EHE, students had to solve several consecutive conundrums without
leaving the room by being quicker than the rest of the teams within a given set time.
The puzzles followed a theme that connected and gave consistency to the whole
practice, and they were linked to the subject syllabus. Riddles had to be solved not solely
by acquired subject knowledge but also by applying observation, ingenuity and teamwork.
Figure 1 shows the design and order of the activities that shape the EHE. It contains
eight puzzles; six of them (from 2 to 7) have an educational objective linked to specific
contents of the subject, as indicated in the figure. The other two puzzles (1 and 8) are the
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17
ones used to start the EHE and to end it. In addition, some complementary playful tests
are collected that support the narrative of the EHE in elliptical form within Figure 1.
Figure 1. Organization
Figure and
1. Organization content
and contentof
ofthe
the different activities
different activities carried
carried outout in EHE.
in the the EHE.
In terms of narrative, the chosen theme was appropriate for the student profiles as it
was replicable in future learning. Students were given a job offer from an important mul-
tinational company to replace the current management team, due to retirement.
For those students who took part in the EHE, the experience started with the viewingEduc. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 6 of 16
Figure 1. Organization and content of the different activities carried out in the EHE.
InInterms
termsofofnarrative,
narrative,thethechosen
chosentheme
themewas was appropriate
appropriate for for the
the student
student profiles
profiles asas it
was replicable in future learning. Students were given a job offer
it was replicable in future learning. Students were given a job offer from an important from an important mul-
tinational company
multinational company to to
replace
replacethethe
current
current management
management team,
team,due
dueto to
retirement.
retirement.
ForForthose
thosestudents
studentswhowhotooktookpart
partininthe
theEHE,
EHE,the
theexperience
experiencestarted
startedwith
withthetheviewing
viewing
ofofaashort
short introductory
introductory video
video where
wherethe thelecturers
lecturerspresented
presented thethe
plot, instructions
plot, instructionsandand
rules
[47]. The quickest team in solving the riddles
rules [47]. The quickest team in solving the riddles would be thewould be the winner and they would bebe
and they would
hired as the company’s new management team. Once the video was shown, a acountdown
hired as the company’s new management team. Once the video was shown, countdown
waslaunch
was launchdisplaying
displayingthe theremaining
remaining time
time ofof the
the game.
game.
TheThesupporting
supportingtest test(Figure
(Figure 1—ellipses)
1—ellipses) starts with with aariddle
riddlewhich
whichisishidden
hidden inin
a pa-
a
perweight. Students
paperweight. Studentsmust
must introduce
introduce the answer of of the
the riddle
riddleinto
intothe
thedigital
digitalplatform
platformtoto
startthe
start thegame.
game.InInaddition,
addition,other
othertests
testswere
weredeveloped
developedand andcompleted
completedduringduringthetheactivity,
activity,
suchasasphysical
such physicalpuzzles,
puzzles,codes
codesthat
thatshould
shouldbebedecrypted,
decrypted,riddles
riddleshidden
hiddenintointophysical
physical
objectsininthe
objects theroom
room(Figure
(Figure2),2),a adigital
digitalpadlock
padlockinina aweb
webandanda avideo
videowhich
whichhides
hidesa acode
code
inside
insideofofthethenarrative.
narrative.
Figure 2. 2.Examples
Figure Examplesofof
tests performed
tests atat
performed the EHE.
the EHE.
3.2. Physical Organization
Two separate classrooms were booked in different locations to prevent any interference
between both groups; one for the control group and a second one for the EHE group. The
day before the activity, the students from both groups were told individually the time and
location they had to go to.
The control group attended the usual classroom with the traditional master class lay-
out. The control group was divided into five groups, each of which had five or six members.
Each group was given a unique paper document with the activity description in the form of
written questions. The questions, in terms of subject content, were identical to the riddles
the second group had to solve. However, the dynamics of the activity differed, eliminating
time pressure and narrative, both in the texts and in the questions from the whole practice.
They did not visualize the introductory video and the lecture was presented as a traditional
practical lecture, without games or emotions.
The experimental group attended a side classroom, smaller than standard lecture
rooms and with a versatile layout. The room was decorated to create ambience and gain
engagement from the students/players. The room had five stations, one for each team.Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 7 of 16
Each team had few physical elements required to solve some of the challenges in
the EHE (such as conundrums or keys placed strategically in some objects inside the
room). Each team had a laptop with access to the university virtual learning site where the
challenges were found. Along with these, some accessories needed for the activity such as
a paperweight with a code, a list of companies with additional information, a sheet with
codes, a puzzle and other objects not intended to distract the participants’ attention. The
lecturers took the role of game master by being available to the teams as required.
The maximum duration of the activity was 50 min. The winning team would be the
one that completed the activity the quickest.
3.3. Virtual Organization
The control group did not have access to the university learning online platform
during the activity. The experimental group had access to the university online learning
platform (Moodle) during the exercise so they could register the solutions to the challenges.
This allowed them to have feedback on their progress and let lecturers monitor their
movements and results for the study.
The Moodle tool “lessons” was used to implement the virtual side of the EHE. This
tool allows the creation of sequential pages with content or questions and to branch out
itineraries. In order to create separate records for each team, within the initial lesson and
from the first challenge, each team followed a customized itinerary.
Across the respective itineraries’ pages, the information needed to solve the challenges
was becoming available once feedback was received for correct answers. Questions were
used to check the content of the lessons had been absorbed by the students and had two
formats: multiple-choice or numeric. In the multiple-choice questions, students had to
select the correct answer from a list of 15 items to be able to pass to the next question.
For each mistaken answer, the page went back to the original list rearranged, in order to
prevent aleatory choices. In addition, a digital locker was used for one of the challenges,
directing correct responses to a YouTube video with a hint to move forward.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure 3 shows the EHE Moodle design of one of the teams’ itineraries.8 of The
17 other ones
followed the same structure.
Figure
Figure3.3.EHE
EHEdesign (lesson)
design in Moodle.
(lesson) in Moodle.
During the activity, students were allowed to consult their personal notes.
3.4. Study Design
3.4.1. ParticipantsEduc. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 8 of 16
During the activity, students were allowed to consult their personal notes.
3.4. Study Design
3.4.1. Participants
For the design and validation of the activity, the class was divided into two groups,
each of 28 students, created randomly, with a total of 56 participants. One group was
experimental, and the second group was the control. Randomly, students were grouped
into teams of five and six participants and subsequently assigned to the two main groups
of study.
3.4.2. Procedure
The experimental group had an hour and a half, and the control group had an hour
and
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWtwenty-five minutes to carry out the EHE. Both groups spent the last twenty minutes
9 of 17
completing a questionnaire about the session held in Moodle. Time organization is shown
in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Temporal
Figure4. Temporalorganization
organizationof
ofthe
theexperiment.
experiment.
In
In terms
terms ofof analyzing
analyzing the
the results
results and
and validation
validation of
of the
thehypothesis,
hypothesis, the
the study
study used
used
three tools. Firstly, an exam carried out two weeks post-study. The exam
three tools. Firstly, an exam carried out two weeks post-study. The exam consisted consisted of aof
20-a
question test, where students had to select answers from a four-item list and
20-question test, where students had to select answers from a four-item list and a penaltya penalty for
incorrect answers.
for incorrect Seven
answers. of the
Seven ofquestions werewere
the questions veryvery
similar for both
similar the control
for both groupgroup
the control and
the group taking the EHE. The idea was to verify the knowledge retention in both groups.
and the group taking the EHE. The idea was to verify the knowledge retention in both
The second analytical tool, used to measure aspects such as motivation and emotion,
groups.
was the Gameful Experience Questionnaire, Gamefulquest [48], based on 56 items orga-
The second analytical tool, used to measure aspects such as motivation and emotion,
nized in seven categories (Accomplishment, Challenge, Competition, Guided, Immersion,
was the Gameful Experience Questionnaire, Gamefulquest [48], based on 56 items orga-
Playfulness and Social experience). This questionnaire measured the individual user’s
nized in seven categories (Accomplishment, Challenge, Competition, Guided, Immersion,
game experience in systems, here the EHE.
Playfulness and Social experience). This questionnaire measured the individual user’s
game
4. experience in systems, here the EHE.
Results
Statistical analysis was performed using the computing environment R [49] and in
4. Results
particular the R-Likert library [50], for the questionnaire data.
Statistical analysis was performed using the computing environment R [49] and in
particular
4.1. Testing the R-LikertH1
Hypothesis library [50], for the questionnaire data.
In order to check whether the learning is greater for those students who enrolled in
4.1.EHE
the Testing Hypothesis
experience H1 compared to those who did not (Hypothesis H1), we consider
when
In order
the final to check
evaluation of whether the learning
the subject. Figure 5aisshows
greaterboxplots
for thoseofstudents who enrolled
final evaluation in
results
theboth
for EHEcontrol
experience
and when compared
experimental to those
groups andwho did not (Hypothesis
a parametric H1), we consider
t-test was performed show-
ing
the that
finalthere were no
evaluation of significant
the subject.differences between
Figure 5a shows Control
boxplots of and
finalExperimental groups
evaluation results for
(p-value = 0.3433).
both control and experimental groups and a parametric t-test was performed showing
that there were no significant differences between Control and Experimental groups (p-
value = 0.3433).4.1. Testing Hypothesis H1
In order to check whether the learning is greater for those students who enrolled in
the EHE experience when compared to those who did not (Hypothesis H1), we consider
the final evaluation of the subject. Figure 5a shows boxplots of final evaluation results for
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 527
both control and experimental groups and a parametric t-test was performed showing 9 of 16
that there were no significant differences between Control and Experimental groups (p-
value = 0.3433).
(a) (b)
Figure 5. (a) Boxplots of final evaluation results for both Control and Experimental groups; and
(b) Boxplots of final evaluation results for Control and EHE Completed and EHE Not completed groups.
We also considered whether students participating in the EHE completed the ex-
periment or not. Again, Figure 5b shows differences in the final evaluation between
control/completed EHE and not completed EHE students. An analytical analysis shows
that there are no significant differences between the three groups (p-value = 0.167) and
when considering groups two by two, we observed that the students not completing the
EHE experience differ from the other two groups. Table 1 shows numerical summaries of fi-
nal evaluation for the different groups considered (Control, Experimental, EHE Completed
and EHE Not Completed).
Table 1. Numerical summaries of final evaluation for the different groups considered (Control, Exper-
imental, EHE completed and EHE Not Completed): minimum (Min), 1st quantile (Q1), median (Med),
Mean, 33rd quantile (Q3), maximum (Max) and standard deviation (SD)).
Min Q1 Med Mean Q3 Max SD
Control 3.548 5.436 6.016 6.050 6.728 7.588 1.032
Experimental (EHE) 3.788 4.514 5.968 5.839 6.934 7.816 1.350
EHE Completed 4.256 6.068 6.736 6.386 7.268 7.740 1.257
EHE Incompleted 3.788 4.240 5.168 5.291 5.868 7.816 1.272
4.2. Testing Hypothesis H2
As mentioned above, after the EHE experience, students responded to a questionnaire
based on 56 questions. The Gamefulquest [48] and the 56 questions are arranged in seven
well-known dimensions: Accomplishment, Challenge, Competition, Guided, Immersion,
Playfulness and Social Experience. A seven-point Likert-type scale was used for each
question, ranging from “(1) strongly disagree” to “(7) strongly agree.”
Out of the total of 56 students, only 47 students completed both the questionnaire and
the evaluation process, 25 from the Control group and 22 from the experimental group
(12 of which completed the experience and 10 did not).
For each of the 56 questions, we analyzed whether there were significant differences
between the control and the hall escape groups (Hypothesis H2). To do this, we used both
graphical and inferential methods. Whether a parametric or nonparametric test should
be employed, for analyzing questionnaire data, has been somehow controversial. Many
authors argue that for such discrete ordinal variables, a nonparametric test should be used.
However, other authors argue that parametric tests are more robust and could also be
employed for Likert data under some premises such as normality assumptions not being
violated; see for instance Sullivan et al. [51].
After checking normality for each of the 56 different questions of the questionnaire,
employing both graphical inspection (Q–Q plots) and two normality tests (the Kolmogorov–
Smirnov test and the Shapiro–Wilk’s W test) we concluded that nonparametric Mann–Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 10 of 16
Whitney tests would be better used here and, therefore, Mann–Whitney tests were em-
ployed for testing significant differences between control and experimental groups in each
one of the 56 questionnaire responses. Only 16 out of the 56 Mann–Whitney tests developed
seem to be not significant (p-values > 0.05), which allows us to conclude that responses from
students who took part in the EHE experiment differ markedly from those who did not
took part in the gaming experience along with the seven dimensions of the questionnaire.
4.3. Testing Hypotheses H3 and H4
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Apart from the seven dimensions considered in the Gamefulquest 11 of 17
questionnaire, in
this research we are especially interested in two particular aspects, namely motivation and
emotion. Out of the 56 questions, we identified 13 questions related to emotion (Hypothe-
emotion. Out of the 56 questions, we identified 13 questions related to emotion (Hypoth-
sis H3) andand
esis H3) 13 13
related
relatedtotomotivation (Hypothesis
motivation (Hypothesis H4).H4). Figures
Figures 6 and67and 7 present
present results of the
results of
questionnaire for the
the questionnaire questions
for the questionsrelated
related to motivation
to motivation and
and emotion,
emotion, respectively.
respectively.
Motivation
Inspires me to compete
Experimental 6% 6% 89%
Control 24% 10% 67%
Inspires me to maintain m y standards of
performance
Experimental 0% 0% 100%
Control 14% 14% 71%
Involves me by its competitive aspects
Experimental 0% 6% 94%
Control 14% 5% 81%
Makes me feel like I am socially involved
Experimental 0% 0% 100%
Control 0% 5% 95%
Makes me lose myself in what I am doing
Experimental 0% 0% 100%
Control 10% 10% 81%
Makes me push my limits
Experimental 0% 6% 94%
Control 10% 14% 76%
Makes me strive to take myself to the next level
Experimental 0% 6% 94%
Control 10% 24% 67%
Makes me want to be in first place
Experimental 6% 17% 78%
Control 19% 24% 57%
Makes me work at a level close to what I am
capable of
Experimental 0% 6% 94%
Control 10% 38% 52%
Motivates me to do things that feel highly
demanding
Experimental 0% 17% 83%
Control 19% 5% 76%
Motivates me to progress and get better
Experimental 0% 6% 94%
Control 10% 14% 76%
Pressures me in a positiv e way by its high
demands
Experimental 0% 11% 89%
Control 19% 10% 71%
Pushes me to strive for accomplishments
Experimental 0% 11% 89%
Control 5% 29% 67%
100 50 0 50 100
Percentage
(1) Strongly Disagree (3) Slightly Disagree (5) Slightly Agree (7) Strongly Agree
Response (2) Disagree (4) Neither Agree nor Disagree (6) Agree
Figure 6. Questionnaire questions related to motivation.
Figure 6. Questionnaire questions related to motivation.Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 11 of 16
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17
All these
All these 26
26questions
questionsshow
showsignificant
significantdifferences
differences between
between thethe Escape
Escape Room
Room andand
control
control students,
students,i.e., p-values<Educ.
Educ.Sci.
Sci.2021,
2021,11,
11,x527
FOR PEER REVIEW 1312ofof17
16
presented
responses in
areFigure
higher8a,b, showing graphical
for experimental evidence
than control and with
students statistical testEduc. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 13 of 16
the main goal of the objective of the activity, which is to generate emotions. In order to be
able to do this, a minimum of two teachers must participate in the EHE and one of them
must become the game master. Other studies in the literature underline the role of the
game master during the performance of EER [40,52], since this figure offers extra guidance.
The first defined hypothesis deals with the improvement of the learning process of
the experimental group that performed the EHE. In H1, it is stated that this group would
achieve better results than the control group. The experiment looked for the students’ emo-
tional stimulation to improve their knowledge retention and memory. A number of recent
studies state both negative and positive emotionally arousing events are better remembered
than emotionally neutral events [18–20]. Thus, “Emotional memory is the result of storing
the information that was accompanied by stressful factors through which the information
is more easily fixed” [21]. The results, shown in Figure 5a,b, reject the hypothesis. Despite
the fact that the exam results are slightly better for those who successfully finished the
EHE, there is no statistical significance. The students who did not finish the EHE achieved
worse results, but these are not significant. Thus, it is confirmed that applying this strategy
does not worsen students’ learning results when the experimental group is compared to
the control group, provided that students finish the activity. It is of interest to recall here
that the gaming experience took place in just a 2 h session and therefore we could not
expect this to have a significant effect upon the whole evaluation of the semester. This
lack of positive academic results is found in similar Educational Escape Room experiences
reported in the literature [45,52,53].
The second hypothesis (H2) tries to answer whether EHE participants felt the game
in all its dimensions, following the seven emotions once defined by Högberg et al. (2019)
in a designed and validated questionnaire [48]. As a result, a remarkable game perfection
difference was measured between the experimental and the control groups. It is clear from
the outcome the appropriate design of the experimental activity strengthens the feelings
generated by games, such as the motivation and the emotions that this research fosters.
Despite the fact that there are other questionnaires, such as the one proposed by Hou and
Chou [54] or GAMEX [55], that measure a number between two and five dimensions, they
share the same goal, which is getting to know the game experience.
The last two hypotheses deal with two aspects that are key to this work, i.e., motivation
(H3) and emotion (H4). As expected, the experimental group exhibits significatively better
results for both cases, summarized in Figure 8a,b boxplots.
Using Escape Room as an educational strategy to foster student motivation is widely
proposed in the literature [40,44,55], since it engages the students and maintains their attention.
Educational Hall Escape is based on the Educational Escape Room, providing two
important extras:
• the existence of several teams competing to achieve the same challenge at the same
time and place; and
• the condition of leaving the room as the final goal is eliminated.
Thus, the possibilities of this strategy for working on more skills than EER are slightly
higher provided that the main features of it are kept, such as the room, the puzzles and
the narrative.
Even though here it was demonstrated that the learning is not improved by the EHE,
due to its brief application, the motivation of the students and their emotions increased
notably. This fact can be used to engage the students with the subject.
The study presented here shows an experience that can be easily replicated in other
fields, producing a positive impact on the motivation of the students who participate in the
experiment, i.e., EHE, instead of the traditional class. The main limitation of this research
is the lack of academic results linked to emotions, even though the motivation increases, as
previously mentioned. From the results and detected limitations, future work is proposed
to take advantage of the motivation improvement during these types of games, in which
the students become involved in the subject, by re-scheduling the activity to the start of
the term. Hence, these types of strategies would be recommended for the beginning of theEduc. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 14 of 16
course, as a reason for introducing students to the topic and contents. On the other hand,
since the proposed activity is generic, focused on reviewing some concepts, we propose
changing the main educational objective by focusing it on the learning of new concepts.
The new objective not only would imply a support to understand already seen concepts,
but also look at new ones, at the time that an active and autonomous attitude of the student
is obtained. This type of activity would replace the classic classroom teaching method
at times.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.M.-G. and O.B.-G..; theoretical background, L.S.-L. and
A.M.-G.; methodology, A.M.-G. and O.B.-G.; validation, R.M.D.; formal analysis, R.M.D.; investiga-
tion, A.M.-G. and O.B.-G.; data curation, R.M.D.; writing—original draft preparation, all authors;
writing—review and editing, L.S.-L. and R.M.D.; supervision, O.B.-G. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work has been co-funded by the Madrid Regional Government, through the project
e-Madrid-CM (P2018/TCS-4307). The e-Madrid-CM project is also co-financed by the Structural
Funds (FSE and FEDER).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Berrocoso, J.V. Aprendizaje de la Historia y Simulación Educativa; Tejuelo Didáctica Leng. Lit. Educ.; Repositorio Institucional
Universidad de Extremadura: Dehesa, Spain, 2010; pp. 83–99.
2. Daza, M.C.S.; Fernández-Sánchez, M.R. Gamificando el aula universitaria. Análisis de una experiencia de Escape Room en
educación superior. REXE Rev. Estud. Exp. Educ. 2019, 18, 105–115.
3. Borrego, C.; Fernández, C.; Blanes, I.; Robles, S. Room Escape at Class: Escape Games Activities to Facilitate the Motivation and
Learning in Computer Science. J. Technol. Sci. Educ. 2017, 7, 162–171. [CrossRef]
4. Rogers, S.; Evans, J. Inside Role-Play in Early Childhood Education: Researching Young Children’s Perspectives; Routledge: Abingdon,
UK, 2008; ISBN 978-1-134-13654-4.
5. Lim, J. Fun, Games & Economics: An Appraisal of Game Theory in Economics. Univ. Ave. Undergrad. J. Econ. 1999, 3, 7.
6. Cournot, A.A. Recherches Sur Les Principes Mathématiques de La Théorie des Richesses; L. Hachette: Paris, France, 1838.
7. McDonald, J. The Game of Business; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1975; ISBN 978-0-385-09008-7.
8. Mayer, I. Playful Organisations & Learning Systems; Breda University of Applied Sciences: Breda, The Netherlands, 2016.
9. Fleming, T.M.; Bavin, L.; Stasiak, K.; Hermansson-Webb, E.; Merry, S.N.; Cheek, C.; Lucassen, M.; Lau, H.M.; Pollmuller, B.;
Hetrick, S. Serious Games and Gamification for Mental Health: Current Status and Promising Directions. Front. Psychiatry 2017,
7, 215. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Uskov, A.; Sekar, B. Serious Games, Gamification and Game Engines to Support Framework Activities in Engineering: Case
Studies, Analysis, Classifications and Outcomes. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Electro/Information
Technology, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 5–7 June 2014; pp. 618–623.
11. Gloria, A.D.; Bellotti, F.; Berta, R. Serious Games for Education and Training. Int. J. Serious Games 2014, 1, 1. [CrossRef]
12. Kiryakova, G.; Angelova, N.; Yordanova, L. Gamification in Education. In Proceedings of the 9th International Balkan Education
and Science Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 24–27 August 2014.
13. Healey, D. Gamification White Paper; Macmillan Education: 2019. Available online: https://www.macmillaneducation.es/wp-
content/uploads/2019/04/Gamification-White-Paper_Mar-2019.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2021).
14. Marczewski, A. Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Unicorn Edition, 1st ed.; Gamified: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-1-72401-710-9.
15. Silva, E. Gamifying Learning with Social Gaming Mechanics; CreativeCommons: Mountain View, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 61–62.
16. Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”. In
Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Tampere,
Finland, 28 September 2011; pp. 9–15.
17. Dicheva, D.; Dichev, C.; Agre, G.; Angelova, G. Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2015,
18, 75–88.
18. Cahill, L.; Prins, B.; Weber, M.; McGaugh, J.L. Beta-Adrenergic Activation and Memory for Emotional Events. Nature 1994, 371,
702–704. [CrossRef]
19. Romeu, P.F. Recuerdo de imágenes emocionales y niveles de procesamiento. Psicothema 2002, 14, 591–596.Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 15 of 16
20. Lago, J.M.R.; Rey, J.F. Reconocimiento de fotografías de contenido emocional: Efectos de la valencia cuando se controla el arousal.
Psicológica Rev. Metodol. Psicol. Exp. 2010, 31, 65–86.
21. Justel, N.; Psyrdellis, M.; Ruetti, E. Modulación de la memoria emocional: Una revisión de los principales factores que afectan los
recuerdos. Suma Psicológica 2013, 20, 163–174. [CrossRef]
22. Steidl, S.; Razik, F.; Anderson, A.K. Emotion Enhanced Retention of Cognitive Skill Learning. Emotion 2011, 11, 12–19. [CrossRef]
23. Geake, J. Educational Neuroscience and Neuroscientific Education: In Search of a Mutual Middle Way. In Research Intelligence;
University of New England: Biddeford, ME, USA, 2005.
24. Nicholson, S. Peeking behind the Locked Door: A Survey of Escape Room Facilities. 2015. Available online: https://scottnicholson.
com/pubs/erfacwhite.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2021).
25. Manzano-León, A.; Rodríguez-Ferrer, J.M.; Aguilar-Parra, J.M.; Martínez Martínez, A.M.; Luque de la Rosa, A.; Salguero García,
D.; Fernández Campoy, J.M. Escape Rooms as a Learning Strategy for Special Education Master’s Degree Students. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7304. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Nicholson, S. Creating Engaging Escape Rooms for the Classroom. Child. Educ. 2018, 94, 44–49. [CrossRef]
27. Gómez-Urquiza, J.L.; Gómez-Salgado, J.; Albendín-García, L.; Correa-Rodríguez, M.; González-Jiménez, E.; Cañadas-De la
Fuente, G.A. The Impact on Nursing Students’ Opinions and Motivation of Using a “Nursing Escape Room” as a Teaching Game:
A Descriptive Study. Nurse Educ. Today 2019, 72, 73–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Kinio, A.E.; Dufresne, L.; Brandys, T.; Jetty, P. Break out of the Classroom: The Use of Escape Rooms as an Alternative Teaching
Strategy in Surgical Education. J. Surg. Educ. 2019, 76, 134–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. López-Pernas, S.; Gordillo, A.; Barra, E.; Quemada, J. Examining the Use of an Educational Escape Room for Teaching Program-
ming in a Higher Education Setting. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 31723–31737. [CrossRef]
30. Vörös, A.I.V.; Sárközi, Z. Physics Escape Room as an Educational Tool. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing LLC: New
York, NY, USA, 2017. Available online: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.5017455 (accessed on 17 May 2021).
31. Lathwesen, C.; Belova, N. Escape Rooms in STEM Teaching and Learning—Prospective Field or Declining Trend? A Literature
Review. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 308. [CrossRef]
32. Brown, N.; Darby, W.; Coronel, H. An Escape Room as a Simulation Teaching Strategy. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2019, 30, 1–6. [CrossRef]
33. Connelly, L.; Burbach, B.E.; Kennedy, C.; Walters, L. Escape Room Recruitment Event: Description and Lessons Learned. J. Nurs.
Educ. 2018, 57, 184–187. [CrossRef]
34. Friedrich, C.; Teaford, H.; Taubenheim, A.; Boland, P.; Sick, B. Escaping the Professional Silo: An Escape Room Implemented in
an Interprofessional Education Curriculum. J. Interprof. Care 2019, 33, 573–575. [CrossRef]
35. Humphrey, K. The Application of a Serious, Non-Digital Escape Game Learning Experience in Higher Education. Sport Exerc.
Psychol. Rev. 2017, 13, 48–54.
36. Warmelink, H.; Mayer, I.; Weber, J.; Heijligers, B.; Haggis, M.; Peters, E.; Louwerse, M. AMELIO: Evaluating the Team-Building
Potential of a Mixed Reality Escape Room Game. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium
on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 15–18 October 2017; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2017;
pp. 111–123.
37. Yllana-Prieto, F.; Jeong, J.S.; González-Gómez, D. An Online-Based Edu-Escape Room: A Comparison Study of a Multidimensional
Domain of PSTs with Flipped Sustainability-STEM Contents. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1032. [CrossRef]
38. Morrell, B.L.M.; Ball, H.M. Can You Escape Nursing School? Educational Escape Room in Nursing Education. Nurs. Educ.
Perspect. 2020, 41, 197–198. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Monaghan, S.; Nicholson, S. Bringing Escape Room Concepts to Pathophysiology Case Studies. HAPS Educ. 2017, 21, 49–65.
[CrossRef]
40. Giang, C.; Chevalier, M.; Negrini, L.; Peleg, R.; Bonnet, E.; Piatti, A.; Mondada, F. Exploring Escape Games as a Teaching Tool in
Educational Robotics. In Proceedings of the Educational Robotics in the Context of the Maker Movement, Rome, Italy, 11 October
2018; Moro, M., Alimisis, D., Iocchi, L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 95–106.
41. Eukel, H.N.; Frenzel, J.E.; Cernusca, D. Educational Gaming for Pharmacy Students—Design and Evaluation of a Diabetes-
Themed Escape Room. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2017, 81, 6265. [CrossRef]
42. Jambhekar, K.; Pahls, R.P.; Deloney, L.A. Benefits of an Escape Room as a Novel Educational Activity for Radiology Residents.
Acad. Radiol. 2020, 27, 276–283. [CrossRef]
43. Olszewski, A.E.; Wolbrink, T.A. Serious Gaming in Medical Education: A Proposed Structured Framework for Game Development.
Simul. Healthc. 2017, 12, 240–253. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. López-Belmonte, J.; Segura-Robles, A.; Fuentes-Cabrera, A.; Parra-González, M.E. Evaluating Activation and Absence of Negative
Effect: Gamification and Escape Rooms for Learning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2224. [CrossRef]
45. Clarke, S.; Arnab, S.; Morini, L.; Wood, O.; Green, K.; Masters, A.; Bourazeri, A. EscapED: A Framework for Creating Live-Action,
Interactive Games for Higher/Further Education Learning and Soft Skills Development. In Proceedings of the 10th European
Conference on Games Based Learning, Paisley, UK, 6–7 October 2016; pp. 968–972.
46. Cain, J. Exploratory Implementation of a Blended Format Escape Room in a Large Enrollment Pharmacy Management Class.
Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 2019, 11, 44–50. [CrossRef]
47. Borrás-Gené, O. IB International Marketing Escape Room [Slides]; Slideshare: Madrid, Spain, 2019. Available online: https:
//es.slideshare.net/oriolupm/escapando-del-aula (accessed on 15 May 2021).Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 527 16 of 16
48. Högberg, J.; Hamari, J.; Wästlund, E. Gameful Experience Questionnaire (GAMEFULQUEST): An Instrument for Measuring the
Perceived Gamefulness of System Use. User Model. UserAdapt. Interact. 2019, 29, 619–660. [CrossRef]
49. R Core Team. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2017.
50. Bryer, J.; Speerschneider, K. Likert: An R Package Analyzing and Visualizing Likert Item; GitHub: Vienna, Austria, 2017.
51. Sullivan, G.M.; Artino, A.R. Analyzing and Interpreting Data from Likert-Type Scales. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2013, 5, 541–542.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Pearcy, M.; Guise, E.; Heller, D. “Escape the Room”—A Strategy for Problem-Based Learning and Student Inquiry. Soc. Stud. Res.
Pract. 2019, 14, 306–320. [CrossRef]
53. Chang, H.-Y.H. Escaping the Gap: Escape Rooms as an Environmental Education Tool; Environmental Sciences at UC Berkeley: Senior
Thesis Projects; University of California: UC Berkeley: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2019; p. 35.
54. Hou, H.; Chou, Y.-S. Exploring the Technology Acceptance and Flow State of a Chamber Escape Game—Escape the Lab© for
Learning Electromagnet Concept. Available online: /paper/Exploring-the-technology-acceptance-and-flow-state-Hou-Chou/
6a0f6e37a44361ac1ed7b4bec22996b1705549ed (accessed on 14 July 2020).
55. Eppmann, R.; Bekk, M.; Klein, K. Gameful Experience in Gamification: Construction and Validation of a Gameful Experience
Scale [GAMEX]. J. Interact. Mark. 2018, 43, 98–115. [CrossRef]You can also read
